Thank you For all of your responses. I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough. I could sell my 50 L and my old version of the 24 – 70 to purchase the newest version of the 24 – 70 and still have money left over to buy the 50mm 1.4.

I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough.

I did exactly that a few years back...sold the 50L and kept the 50 f/1.4 which I also had and still do. This is not to say that the 50L was not exceptional; when the AF nailed the subject it was tack sharp and the bokeh was sweet. However, in my specific lineup it was clearly an extravagance with 35L and 85L.

Mind you, in the interest of full disclosure, in the last month, I did go through a pathetic (Gollum-like), gear-driven, fever to get the 50L back in my collection... but it would have been a luxury; my concerns about it from the first round would have resurfaced once it was in my hands, and it is highly unlikely that I would have suddenly found more use for it than I had the first time around...

So, if the 50L truly fits in your line up, and you have the funds for it, of course get it... only you can make that call.

Thank you For all of your responses. I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough. I could sell my 50 L and my old version of the 24 – 70 to purchase the newest version of the 24 – 70 and still have money left over to buy the 50mm 1.4.

Thanks again.

They're really two different animals. Both are good and both have strengths and weaknesses. I had both for a little while and considered keeping the 1.4 after I bought the 1.2. The 1.4 is a classic. I really like the lens and it's really the same exact lens design that has been around for decades. Still use my FD version of it. Optically it's exactly the same. Unfortunately, the build quality is not. I always felt like I needed to treat the EF 50 1.4 like a raw egg with its flimsy motor coupling and protruding/moving front part. But sharp it is. A little stopped down it's actually sharper than the 50L (between 2.8 and 4 or so). The other benefit is that it's small and light and doesn't draw any attention.

The 50L on the other hand is a brick and feels very solid. No moving front element there. Wide open it's perhaps a bit sharper but what is more is that the color contrast is just a league of its own. That does come at the price of some CA and of course the infamous "front focus" when stopped down slightly.

It's the old issue: no 50mm lens is "perfect". You pick your poison. It depends on how you use it. If sharpness is the main concern here the 1.4 will serve you well.

Well I owned the 50 1.4 on my 500D times back then, I didn't like it so much anymore on the 5D3 and sold it. I now got the 50L and absolutely love it, you just can't compare them. The 50L is big, heavy, a bokeh monster and weather isolated whereas the 50 1.4 is a average built 20 year old lens with just a different look.

Thank you For all of your responses. I guess my real question for all the 50 mm L-series users out there was: is the 50mm 1.4 not enough. I could sell my 50 L and my old version of the 24 – 70 to purchase the newest version of the 24 – 70 and still have money left over to buy the 50mm 1.4.

Thanks again.

You seem to be quite fond of your present 50L. Have you considered selling your Canon 24-70 and replacing it with the Tamron SP24-70 Di VC? Cost should be pretty much a wash, so you could keep your 50. You'd be getting a sharper lens (though not as sharp as the vll) and great VC (IS). There's not much the Tamron and the 70-200L v2 can't handle. I have them both and the versatility is great. I usually bring my 35 & 85 if I need more isolation, but those 2 zooms can do pretty much anything...

I'd keep them both and buy the 35mm f1.4, but maybe not until after the rumored new version is announced.Not that the new one would be a slam dunk - particularly if it's priced like the new 24-70 over the old version.